Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the UBS Healthcare Conference. I'm Kevin Caliendo, Healthcare IT and Distribution Analyst, and we are very happy to have the management of GoodRx with us today: Karsten Voermann, CFO, and Romin Nabiey, the Chief Accounting Officer. Guys, thank you so much for joining.
Glad to be here.
Thanks for having us. We really appreciate it, and, Kevin, I'll just make a quick safe harbor statement, and then we can get right into it. I'd like to remind everyone that today's fireside chat will contain forward-looking statements, and all of the statements that don't relate to matters of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements, including statements regarding our plans, strategies, goals, objectives, market opportunity, and anticipated future performance. These statements aren't promises or guarantees but involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other important factors which may cause our actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. For additional information concerning such factors, please refer to our risk factor section of Form 10-K, updated by Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2024.
We may also reference certain non-GAAP measures which are reconciled to the nearest GAAP metric in the company's earnings press releases, which can be found on the overview page of Investor Relations' website. And with that, we can dive right in, Kevin.
Thank you. Thank you very much. It was good seeing you last night. This is the first time Karsten and I have actually ever been in the same room together. So after years of covering, due to circumstance and other reasons, we've never actually been together.
It's been fun to be together.
Thank you. I appreciate it. Let's jump right in. The call, your last earnings call, was interesting in the context that you gave a much wider range of expectations around the prescriptions transaction business for 2025 than I think a lot of people expected. It's been a relatively consistent, predictable business, give or take one or two points. And your guidance, and please remind us specifically what it was, but had a very much larger range based on potential various outcomes that you were seeing in terms of PBM pharmacy behavior. Why don't you first talk about the guidance, just to frame it, and then we'll dive into it more?
Sure. Yeah. First of all, to hit the guidance specifically, we normally don't talk about the upcoming year this early, meaning in the current year, but we felt like some of the industry trends warranted talking about the fact that we anticipate we'll be growing next year again, as we have been, and the range of growth will be in the single-digit percentage span, so from low to high single digits. And the reason for that is that while overall GoodRx's performance, as you've seen in the third quarter, has been going very nicely, our Pharma Manufacturer Solutions offering has been growing nicely, and we anticipate we'll continue to grow 20% into the fourth quarter and faster than that year over year next year.
Our integrated savings offering, which is GoodRx automatically being available to users through their customary employer-sponsored benefits card, is growing very nicely and doing as expected for this year. Certainly, our margins are creeping up with 520 basis points of margin accretion from 3Q last year to 3Q this year, also going very nicely. So I think we see those parts of the business doing very well. On our prescriptions marketplace side, which is the portion of our business where consumers save money on their medications using GoodRx, there too we see volume doing well. Our monthly active consumers or the users who use the platform are, again, up about 7% year over year from the same quarter last year. And we're seeing ourselves taking market share.
But to your point, Kevin, I think the challenge right now that's different than prior years is that we see pharmacies and PBMs and their customary end-of-year tug-of-war around reimbursement rates, around who's going to make how much on a given script. We see that tug-of-war potentially skewing more towards pharmacies. And the reason we say that is because the pharmacies are in a bit of a tough spot, tougher than they have been in the past. And with the year-over-year reimbursement rate pressure they've had, their backs are a little bit to the wall. And we see that as creating potentially temporary leverage, which they can use to pull reimbursement rates towards themselves. And that, in turn, impacts us because when we make money, we drive all of these prescriptions, over 100 million prescriptions in 2023 alone, into the pharmacy PBM ecosystem.
And in return for driving all of these scripts into the pharmacy PBM ecosystem, they effectively pay us an acquisition cost for those scripts, which takes the form of an admin fee. And if there's pressure on PBMs and they're making less money, then their propensity to pay us admin fees may also be affected to some degree. That's really the variable that creates the swing, just to go full circle to where you started, between a higher single-digit growth rate next year and a lower single-digit growth rate next year is what the expectations are around the degree to which pharmacies prevail in getting better reimbursements or PBMs prevail and maybe have to give up some of the profit pool on a per-script basis. Is that helpful?
No, it's a great framework, and I really want to dive into this because what you're stating is somewhat unique. We haven't really seen an environment in the last however many years we can go back.
Decades, maybe.
Forever, where the PBMs did not cut reimbursement. We had Walgreens in our offices, and Tim Wentworth was talking about that he was excited because the reimbursement cuts weren't as great. They had $1 billion, $700 million, $500 million. Now it was somewhere less than that. We don't know exactly, but he was excited by the idea that he saw the light at the end of the tunnel. Are you suggesting that you're actually seeing a scenario where PBMs aren't getting as much rate cut or they actually you're hearing because I know you don't know the negotiation, but they're actually going to be paying more because of mix or some other reason?
Yeah. So I think in the PBM world, the paying more sort of is the take less admin fee back from the pharmacy. And I think if you look at the pharmacy asks, certainly, the pharmacy asks include actually reducing admin fee, i.e., PBMs paying more in your parlance, versus increasing admin fee. So from that perspective, if the pharmacies got everything they wanted, we could see the scenario across certain pharmacies and PBMs that you're describing. To your point, historically, the pharmacies haven't prevailed. This has always gone unidirectionally in the favor of the PBMs. But it's also a reality, and one of the reasons we created the broader range is because pharmacies are in a tougher situation than they have been in the past. And I think that gives them leverage right now.
Once it stabilizes, that leverage may atrophy again, and it may go back to the world we're more familiar with. For 2025, we wanted to be prudent in terms of what kind of expectations we set.
I would say, though, that a lot of the work that we're doing is a bridge for a lot of the economic pressures to bridge the gap, with direct contracting being approximately twice the margins that non-direct agreements have. That helps pharmacies quite a bit. And then we'll talk about this in a moment as well. On our point-of-sale brand side, a lot of our brand reimbursements are significantly higher than in the PBM context. So we serve as a bit of a bridge for pharmacies, and they're beginning to see us more and more in that way.
I definitely want to get into that and understand it. I guess my point is, are you actually hearing from PBMs who are coming to you and saying, "We might have to affect the take rate to you because we're getting hit"? Is that what you're actually hearing, or are you just kind of worried that that might be knowing how PBMs always manage to a profit margin? We know that. I mean, they've been doing it forever. They're really good at it. And instead of going this way, they might have to go tangentially towards you a little bit or somewhere else? I think.
We're hearing it primarily from the perspective of the pharmacies. So I think we'll wait to see how all the PBMs react, if they all react similarly, et cetera, because I think for it to impact us materially, it would have to be a pretty wholesale shift. And if that happened, then we'd be at the lower bound of the projected 2025 growth range. If it doesn't happen, then obviously we wouldn't be. So yeah, historically, to your point, the PBMs have prevailed quite successfully. But again, historically, the pharmacies haven't had a couple more years of EBIT degradation available to them before EBIT goes to nothing or negative. So I think that's the big distinction.
We, as investors and analysts who are looking at your company and looking at the industry, should we be following what's happening with CVS and Walgreens, or should we be following what's happening more with the independents and trying to get anecdotal checks when it comes to thinking about your business? Who are you potentially more akin to? I don't want to say risk, because I don't think that's the right answer, but the right word, but you understand what I'm saying?
I think I do. And I think the reality is that volume predominantly flows through big retail pharmacies and grocers. Volume predominantly does not flow through independents. And so independents are just less relevant for us than the big chains, either on the retail pharmacy or the grocery side are.
Okay. No, that's helpful. I was just trying to frame it a little bit in terms of the context for this. You mentioned on the call that you had reached a point where 30% of your Rx volumes are now running through direct contracting. Let's get into this. For those listening on the call who are new to the story or need a refresher, can you speak to how this way of contracting differs from your traditional role as a funnel for the PBMs and how this type of contracting can appeal specifically to pharmacies? This is really where you were.
Yeah, I'll take that, Kevin. So when GoodRx was first founded, we leveraged PBMs for their vast distribution. They had contracts in place with all the pharmacies. So we have tens of thousands of pharmacies we could go to immediately and offer great pricing that they also had. So it was our ability to quickly scale that we used them. And we did that for over a decade, which allowed us to drive significant consumer savings during that time and build one of the best brands in healthcare. Fast forward to a few years ago, and the Kroger issue that many folks are familiar with gave us a license to go and work directly with the pharmacies, which had been something we had been wanting to do for quite some time, and put in place direct contracting, which allowed much more flexible alternatives to the PBM-centric approach.
By being able to go directly to the pharmacies, we can now work with them to set pricing strategies to help them support their margin requirements or help them drive volume, whether that's to the front of store or on scripts particularly. And we've done just that. So you've seen I've talked about earlier twice the margin on average for direct contracting. So it's a compelling alternative for pharmacies. And that's part of the reason why we have now 30% of our volume going through these types of agreements, and eight of the top 10 retailers are now direct contracted with GoodRx in some form or fashion.
How do we as consumers see that?
I ask, and this is just a unique thing that's happened to me in the last couple of weeks. I picked up three prescriptions, two for my wife and one for myself. Two of them, I had zero. They did not ask me to pay. I've never had that happen before. The other one was $4.87 or something, more traditional price. I'm like, "Why am I not paying for this?" The pharmacist behind it was a tech, didn't really have an answer. I don't know why that happened. I was glad to have to not pay, but it just seemed kind of interesting.
What is going on that it used to be $10, and then it was $5, and then it was $4.87 or $1.38, or the numbers became random as you can see that they were behind the counter discounting or couponing or doing or using GoodRx themselves, and now I got zero.
Yeah. So from a consumer standpoint, you can't really tell whether it's direct contract or a PBM price. What could have happened in that scenario? I'm not sure. It could have been a point of sale incentive that we were offering. So that's one of the promotional kind of activities that we do is that we fund our own buy down, so to speak, at the point of sale for users, whether it's the first time you're using a drug or maybe you haven't used GoodRx in a while. So it's a way to kind of incentivize you to come back. That might be it. But generally speaking, you're not going to tell between a direct contracted or PBM price. It's very difficult to do so.
Now, for you guys, as we think about your business and the direct contracting, where can it go? I mean, 30% now is great. Are we talking about eventually this becomes the majority? And I guess the second question is, you said it's better margin. What happens if the revenue, oh, this is a separate question. Why don't we just talk first about where can it go in terms of the percentage?
You want to take that one?
Sure. Yeah. I think it's generally driven by retailers. So retailers have pulled direct contracting in. And at Investor Day, we talked about it being over 20%, now over 30%. And the reason it matters is, A, retailer margin to Romin's point, B, is ability to merchandise because the retailer is not beholden to a set of consumer pricing that, let's say, applies to you, Kevin, when you're picking up the script for yourself or your wife. That's set by the PBM because we and they can set price using normal information that people use to merchandise, like elasticity curves. And third, from our perspective, it also follows the profit pools.
Like we talked about in the context of your first question in the pharmacy PBM tug of war, if more of the profit pool starts to go towards pharmacies, we also want to be there and be ahead of that. So from that perspective, also valuable to us. So I think we'd expect to see it continuing to grow, whether it ever becomes the majority. I think it's a little too early to say, in part because the big pharmacies that we talked about earlier, to the extent they prevail in terms of getting reimbursement rates that don't shrink as much or maybe even go up, then they may stick with more of the volume on the PBM side for a longer period of time.
Got it. Okay. Helpful. When we think about the delta between low single digit, high single digit, this gets back to margin a little bit, but what is that? How much leverage is that, or is it just simply the margin is the margin on each of those, and it wouldn't necessarily affect, it doesn't really matter if you grow 1% in that business or 9% over fixed cost. I'm just wondering, okay, lower margin, lower earnings, but is there also any kind of incremental margin shift or swing between the high single digit and the low single digit? Did I make that clear? That wasn't great.
Yeah. So I think a couple of points to make here. You've seen margins accrete pretty significantly over the last several quarters. I think I might have referenced the 3Q YOY on Adjusted EBITDA, like 500 basis points plus. And one of the reasons for that is the growth and the flow through off the growth. The cost of revenue in our context is extraordinarily low, and the cost base is relatively fixed in the whole scheme of things. So as long as we are growing, you'd expect margins to continue to accrete. And that's one of the reasons for the prepared remarks on our earnings call, where we talked about the fact that we have a decently wide span on growth range, but cash flow, EBITDA, we're not worried about being able to continue to deliver accretion on margin end in dollar terms.
I think the other aspect of it is we're just getting more efficient. If you longitudinally look at our spend, say, take the marketing line, the sales and marketing line as an example, over the past several quarters, you've seen it as a % of revenue drop down, and that's just because we continue to refine and become more and more efficient too, so those two things together, I think, dovetail to make us continue to have confidence in what we talked about going all the way back to our Investor Day, that mid-30s Adjusted EBITDA margins are certainly a target that we have and expect to meet.
Okay. I want to get back to the direct contracting because I don't know, I fully understand how it works and how the contracts work with the pharmacies. Is it for all drugs? Is it certain categories of drugs? Do you provide them a list of this is a particular category or manufacturer or something? How does that work? And can the pharmacy use it? Are they mandated to use it at all times, or can they just use it when it's their best price? You understand what I'm saying?
Yeah.
How does it work?
Great question. I think there's some misconceptions in that sometimes it's geographically specific or a spigot that they could turn on or off. Typically, it's a spectrum, and it's based on the basket of drugs that we're applying our discounts to. So if we can direct contract with the entirety of their book, we can have PBM marketplace pricing for the entirety of their book or some combination thereof. So if it's going to be a combination, a good example would be the Walgreens example in which we work with them, and their objective was, "Hey, seasonal illness, we want to conquest. We want to bring front of store sales. Let's get pricing to the right place to bring folks in and not sacrifice too much on margin while maximizing the volume that's coming through into foot traffic," and so we have a ton of data on that.
We are really good at understanding price elasticity curves, and this is something that we can maybe differentiate ourselves on as well and work with them to get pricing to the right point during that seasonal illness timeline. And we met their needs, right? We were able to successfully bring in the foot traffic that they were looking for. And that's exactly the type of stuff that we can help them on in terms of our merchandising partnerships that we have with them. So we go retailer by retailer. We understand what it is that they're trying to do, what are their business needs, and whether it's pricing strategies, whether it's margin, whether it's volume, work with them to kind of put the right programs in place.
Okay. I got it. So you create this program, the pharmacy benefits. I'm assuming it helps them too, right? They benefit. They benefit. Every pharmacy right now is struggling on margin, struggling on cash flow.
Struggling on predictability too.
Yeah, so it helps them on the predictability of their own reimbursement and their own costs.
Yeah. Absolutely.
They have a huge amount of incentive to do this. Did PBM always have incentive to work with you guys? Because in essence, it was free money for a lot of them, right? Where they were going to capture scripts where they might not have because you were basically marketing their price for them. Has it come to a point where you can, if you're worried about the PBM take rate and say, "Hey, well, listen, we're going to continue to work with the pharmacies," if you want to be more competitive or you want to capture more share, can you do that? Can you get in the middle like that and sort of play one against the other to a certain? I mean, I'm just thinking out loud here.
Well, for one, we've worked with PBMs since we were founded, and the kind of take rate we have with them has consistently gone up because of just what you're saying. It's a purely incremental margin to them. And also, we've never had any of them terminate with us just exactly for that reason. So yeah, I think in terms of the trend line there, it's always been up and to the right for us. And now with kind of pharmacies pushing back here and having this equation come into play with the renegotiations, I think it's another opportunity to perhaps go back to PBMs.
Okay. I mean, I'm just trying to think out loud there. Why would a pharmacy work with you guys as opposed to try to run promotions or be more aggressive themselves? Is it the predictability aspect of it?
It's a couple of things. Number one, it's the reach, right? We're driving 100 million plus, or in 2023 drove 100 million plus scripts on behalf of pharmacies, and we have gotten good at it, and we spend quite a bit of money on it. Our S&M line is not small, right? In the hundreds of millions of dollars, so our ability to be able to grab a script and effectively pass it to them for a rate that's efficient for them, meaning what they pay us in terms of admin fee being attractive relative to what they might be able to go acquire that for themselves at, that's one of the reasons that they do it and one of the reasons that we work together with them, whether it's in a direct contracting context or otherwise.
So our ability to be able to leverage the brand, leverage the marketing, efficiently drive volume is a huge attribute of why this is valuable. On top of that, there are a variety of other functions that we perform that are pretty critical, right? Reducing script abandonment matters a lot. Driving incremental value through our brand drug point of sale discounts where we work with companies ranging from Dexcom on the device side to Pfizer and others around providing brand drugs with a GoodRx coupon that are much, much lower priced. The reimbursement to pharmacies off that can be a lot better than the reimbursement they'd get through the traditional channels, right? Because Dexcom and others want them to do well and drive the volume.
So we perform a myriad of services that we aspire to make life better for the pharmacies in economic terms, with and also in non-economic terms too. We're now focusing on our product development technology side, for example, on letting patients get access to medications through the GoodRx App and tools and having the information transmitted directly to the pharmacy so that pharmacists don't have to key in a GoodRx card number. Even the little things matter, and creating this symbiotic relationship and reinforcing it is one of the big reasons we believe that we've been able to grow share in this part of the market consistently over the past several quarters.
Makes total sense. Let's shift gears a little bit. I want to talk about ISP. I don't know that all the investors, if they haven't been following the story for the last year or six months, even nine months, might not be fully aware of what ISP is. Maybe spend a couple of minutes or a minute or so talking about this program, how it came to be, how we should think about it in 2025, 2026 going forward. Do you have any visibility yet on how many planned lives? If you want to break the news to us here, I'd be happy to share that. But in the context of Reg FD, what can you talk about with that business and that opportunity?
Sure. Yeah. We can probably both dive in on this one. So our Integrated savings program launched with ESI in a pilot phase back in 2023 and then expanded to include Caremark, MedImpact, SmithRx, Navitus, et cetera. And what the program does is it eradicates a friction point for consumers that's really important for consumers and also for us. And that friction point is traditionally, to get the benefit of GoodRx, you need to go to the pharmacy and say, "Hey, I want to use GoodRx because I'm going to save money relative to my copay." And that saving of money relative to copay was a motivation for people to do it. But there are a ton of people who don't know prescription prices vary between pharmacies, a ton of people who don't use coupons, period, or don't save money in that way.
So what the ISP program effectively does is create a vehicle where the consumer can just show their regular benefits card, and they'll get the lower of the PBM's price or the GoodRx price on that prescription. So if their copay is $20 on atorvastatin and the GoodRx price is $7 on atorvastatin, they won't be paying their $20 copay. They'll be paying the $7. And it's interesting. You ask about the genesis of the program. That's really interesting because the genesis of the program was a pull from employers or even more downstream, I guess, employees at employers who are going to HR departments and saying, "Hey, my benefit contribution keeps on going up every year, but when it comes time to filling prescriptions, a lot of the time or most of the time I'm using GoodRx.
So why am I paying more for my benefits?" And the employers, hearing this, went to brokers and said, "Hey, we need GoodRx to get wrapped into the benefit plan." So PBMs, to Romin's point, not only have we never had a PBM say, "Hey, I'm not going to work with GoodRx Inc. anymore," they're actually now working with us to market GoodRx into their plan sponsors, which is great for us. So they're becoming a channel partner and becoming in some ways even more aligned with us than they have been in the past. And in that context, they sell into a plan sponsor and sell in their benefit with the option that when GoodRx is cheaper, the claim automatically routes through to GoodRx. And for 2023 and 2024, this only applied to on-formulary medications where we'd helped the employees save money relative to the copay.
For 2025, we announced with MedImpact and others that we're expanding this to off-formulary medications too, which is exciting for both the patients and employees and also for us because the ability to beat sort of an ambient price in the pharmacy for an off-formulary medication should be quite high indeed relative to the GoodRx price. So we're pretty excited about the program. This year it's performing in line with the expectations we had at the beginning of the year. So performing quite nicely and along with our pharma manufacturer solutions business and other lines of revenue, we're just pleased with how it's landed and pleased with the PBM support we're seeing given that it's even now expanding into off-formulary.
Is there anything you can do to influence whether or not a plan signs up for ISP? Is the entire process up to the discretion of the PBM and the plan alone? Or I mean, ideally, do you want to push somebody in one direction or the other? Are you marketing that way?
Yeah. So PBMs typically have go-to-market responsibilities. I'd say the first kind of year or so, we were really focused on the technical implementation, standing up the program. But more so recently, we've interfaced and kind of built a good working partnership with the PBMs to help them massage the messaging, make sure you're hitting the plan sponsors, the employers, and the employees in the right way to message this to them. So I think that's been something we're more and more focused on, and it's helping kind of support that process. And we're also going to things like employer broker conferences to help get the word out as well.
Okay. We've gone 25 minutes and haven't talked about Mansol, Manufacturer Solutions, which you guided for 20% growth. I apologize, but the debate currently is on the other side of the business. But let's talk a little bit about that. What's driving 20% growth? I know the baseline is not as large, but it's still 20% growth. Where's the demand? Where's it coming from? What products and solutions are resonating more? And as this business grows faster, what does it do ultimately to the margins within the segment and the margins within the company?
Sure. I'll take that, Kevin. So just to level set with Manufacturer Solutions for anyone who's slightly newer to the story, Manufacturer Solutions is made up primarily of awareness and access offerings. So awareness being a lot of traditional advertising, things like sponsored listings, banners. We drive those to our 350 million annual consumer visits per year and 750,000 HCP. So traditional media. Then we have our access solutions that make up about two-thirds of the revenue of that business. And those are going to be differentiated offerings like integrated copay cards or point of sale brands, which are effectively point of sale brand rebates, which are effectively manufacturer-driven rebates that we are passing through to the consumer at the point of sale.
Those are really powerful programs we found that really resonate with consumers because obviously you're saving hundreds of dollars often on the price of a brand medication, which is a big hurdle to access. On top of that, you're often sidestepping the formulary benefit friction you often find in terms of step therapy or prior authorization. So great for consumers. Pharma obviously loves it because these are incremental scripts that they're gaining. There are 80 million rejected brand prescriptions per year. So this is going to help positively influence that number down. And on top of that, pharmacies, which we talked about earlier, get better reimbursements. So across the board, it's a win-win-win. And that's part of the reason once these programs are on, they won't turn off. They continue to compound.
And we've gone from just a handful of these last year to 72 programs live now, and they're continuing to grow. So I think that's where a lot of the growth we anticipate will come from. And in terms of how much of it drops to the bottom line, it's a significant portion. High flow-through, as Karsten was alluding to earlier, as we get each incremental sale or script come through, lots of flow-through there.
What categories are being impacted the most? When I say that, is there a particular type? Is it GLP-1s? Is it, I mean?
I think we can probably both hop in on this one. I think particularly with respect to the incredibly fast-growing brand drug point of sale discounts, where Robin said we're up to 72 deals now, up from a couple dozen at the beginning of the year. On those deals, where we see manufacturers leveraging us the most are on medications and devices that consumers want, where penetration through the traditional marketing channel that pharma has, which is rebates to PBMs, is maybe not as effective because plan sponsors, say, me for GoodRx, don't necessarily want to pay for them. So you see us working with Dexcom, for example, on continuous blood glucose monitoring devices. So those are pretty expensive. A lot of employers don't want to cover them. So for Dexcom to get distribution is a little tricky. Just rebating to a PBM may not get you there.
So what Dexcom is doing is basically taking those dollars and putting in the hands of consumers who want the devices in the form of a discount at the point of purchase, which drives Dexcom's volume. Where we come in is, A, we can aggregate the demand because consumers are coming to GoodRx looking to save money. B, we can affect the transaction, meaning because we have relationships with all the pharmacies, we can make sure that the point of sale discount that takes the price from maybe $400 or $500 to maybe $185 at the point of sale, that delta needs to be collected by us from Dexcom and then remitted to the relevant pharmacy who made the claim. So we're able to manage that part of the equation too.
But generalizing from the specific example, the dimensions that matter are they tend to be medications and devices consumers really, really want, medications that have challenging distribution through the traditional distribution vehicles, and finally, where we can help catalyze the demand on behalf of the manufacturers. So it's interesting that you mentioned GLP-1s because there are a lot of analogs to that, right? Consumers really, really want them. I think there's very little debate around that. Employers, not so sure they want to cover them, also not at least for weight loss. Not much debate around that either. So that fits the profile of the kind of medications that are very well suited to pharma manufacturer point of sale discounting.
So we'd be eager to work with the couple of big manufacturers around those to be able to put more of them in consumers' hands and to just drive more volume, particularly now that the market's consumerizing and the supply shortages are getting a little better.
We're out of time, but I just want one really quick one. The margins on Mansol, as these programs, the 72 programs, do they become margin-accretive to the industry, to the overall enterprise? Can the margins in that business continue to grow? Because it's growing and it's growing in different ways now, I'm just not sure how to think about it longer term.
I think Robin made a really salient point here, which is particularly these point of sale discount programs. Once they go on, they very, very rarely get turned off because it's hard for a manufacturer to make up the revenue hole. So in a sense, you commission someone to go sell it, and then the program just runs. So your incremental cost, particularly as they stack on top of each other, gets to be pretty darn attractive from our side.
Fair enough.
So really appreciate you having us too, Kevin.
Thank you.
Thank you enough.
Thank you for coming. I appreciate it. Thanks, everybody, for joining, and have a good day.
Thanks so much, everyone.